At 08:40 PM 11/15/2010, Bob Richard wrote:
On 11/15/2010 4:58 PM, [email protected] wrote:
When majority rules, a 51 percent majority can have their way in
election after election. But what other
possible standard is there for democracy and fairness besides
"majority rule?"
For seats in legislative bodies, proportional representation.
One answer is that every sector of the population ought to have a
chance at being in charge, and that
chance should be in rough proportion to the size of the sector of
the population.
What does "being in charge" mean? If it means "making the rules",
see my response above. If it means
"implementing/administering/enforcing the rules", then I think any
form of lottery would lead to chaos and possibly rebellion during
the occasional terms in office of officials representing small
minorities. Sortition is very feasible for specific kinds of
legislative assemblies, specifically those whose purpose is to
propose measures to be voted on in referenda. I don't think it can
work for deciding who gets to run the executive branch.
Simmons is a voting systems expert, but falls into the trap of
assuming that decision-making can be compartmentalized into
"sectors," i.e., factions that think alike, so it is enough that the
"sectors" are represented fairly.
But true representation isn't compartmentalized. Suppose we have
political parties, and I'm affiliated with one. How are the
candidates for the parties chosen? Ultimately, it's a compromise, and
I might end up, on some issue thatis important to me, unrepresented.
It could be argued that the majority are often unrepresented; they
are represented only by compromises according to the majority in the
faction, and those compromises lose the subtlety of individual positions.
If I'm represented, I want to know exactly who represents me! Of all
the systems I've seen, only Asset allows this, by creating a public
trail between my vote and the election of seats.
The problem of electing a single executive is rather easily resolved,
and it is so resolved in practice in not only many governments, but
also in the vast majority of organizations that hold elections among
members (or shareholders).
Officers are chosen by the representative body, and so they do not
have fixed terms. The U.S. descended from a royalist background, and
it desired to have an elected King. That opened it up to all kinds of
abuses.... it was superior to having a hereditary King, at least in
enough ways to make it more successful, but not superior to true
democracy, which is always the democracy of the present, not of last
year or a few years ago. We can change our minds based on new
evidence or thinking. And so can any deliberative body.
The U.S. system wanted to avoid giving too much power to the people,
and it actually set up an imbalance *against* the people, since two
of the three branches were highly conservative, in theory. Only one
was relatively representative, and even that suffered badly from the
single-winner representative concept, which is what leaves most
people, in fact, unrepresented (they may imagine that they are
represented, simply because they have nothing to compare it with).
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
